Possibly of use in a desert environment where ranges over 2km are possible but elsewhere? Advantage over .50 cal is minimal for cost and complexity needed?I will refrain from comment on commanders and usage...I'm guessing your point will be that such a weapon system enables the vehicles to be used in roles they were not intended for. If that is the answer, surely good doctrine, very good training and knowledgeable leadership would allow for the vehicles to be used properly without forcing them to forego a huge capability?
However, very good doctrine is very much METT-TC dependent -- lacking that, it is just doctrine, ignored as often as it is followed. Troops in contact will use whatever weapons are available, even well trained troops succumb to availability. They must be provided with the proper tools for the job, for sure -- but excessive tools will be misused. A case in point is the TOW missile and the Bradley. The temptation to use the Brad with its 25mm and TOWs as a light tank is quite strong.Actually, the turret limits ready ammunition due to volume and more is invariably stored in the hull (which often means leaving a dismount behind to pass more ammunition up to the turret...). Add the price of higher silhouette, lighter armor (mostly) and using a turret, you really have acquired a vulnerability for small if any benefit...what is the benefit to a turreted vehicle as opposed to a RWS? I imagine a turreted wpn has a far greater ammunition capacity and can reload/ cycle through different ammunition types quicker - but other than that?
Bookmarks